Leader DUI...

[packsaddle 753]

As I recall, after Moses received the 15 (CRASH, oops!), I mean 10 Commandments, Exodus reads like this,

"6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

 

That part about visiting iniquities seems to apply here. Doesn't seem fair but that's life. "...try to look on the bright side of life..."

 

Fact is, his family is going to suffer no matter what. But HE did this to them just as surely as he could have done something awful to other innocent persons while hurling several tons of metal through the public under marginal control. If we go light on him in order to spare the family, what does he learn from that?

Answer: the same thing the multiple-offending-drunk who hit my family learned. He'd learn that after he gets off lightly he'll be able to do it again.

 

[DeanRx 69]

I still say go w/ the SE's and CO's recommendations....

 

However, if it were up to me...

 

1) Ask him to resign. If he refuses, then tell him he is being relieved of all leadership duties within the unit. If he is a man of honest means that had one terrible slip up... he'll take the former and it speaks well of his overall character save this one event. If he insists on staying in leadership w/ the unit, then you KNOW you are making the right choice by kicking him out.

 

Either way - this should be handled as privately as possible. No public humiliation (as tempting as it seems, especially for those who have had the terrors of drunk drivers strike their loved ones). A pound of flesh does nobody any good at this point - thats the court's job, so let them do it.

 

At the same time - invite the family to remain with the unit. The boys can remain and so can mom. I'd be very surprised if she stays, but let that be her choice to make.

 

2) Make an extremely brief announcement at the next unit function (after the resignation) that so-and-so has stepped down for personal reasons. Make it short, but make it clear that no further discussion / explaination will be make by the unit leadership. Then put the issue to bed.

 

If the family chooses to stay - great. The boys can have their friends in a tough time in their lives. Mom might find some support within the unit families as well. Dad can rejoin activities after he has paid his debt to society, just never as a leader again.

 

Realistically, I'd bet the family is gone from the unit within 3 months. Maybe they'll go find another unit that there is not so much "history" with. If this happens - get with council so that if "dad" tries to reregister as a leader, they at least get a ping on the background check.

 

That's how I'd handle it - if a was omnipotent over the situation.... for what its worth.

 

Again - best of luck... this is a bad situation all the way around.

 

Dean

[Twocubdad 665]

All of which is why the SE needs to handle it. It should be treated the same if the conviction showed up on a new applicant's background check. That's why he gets the big bucks.

 

And thanks, packsaddle. I always appreciate a Mel Brooks reference. I was begining to feel a little left out with the recent flurry of sci-fi quotes.

[FScouter 24]

I'm a little surprised at the numerous calls to "tell the Scout Executive". Why? What would you expect the SE to say? The unit is operated by the chartered org. Those folks, with the input of the unit committee are the ones that must decide what will or will not be done.

[nldscout 18]

speaking as a scouter and as a Judge, I will tell you this was not his first time, not if he got 120 days in Jail.

 

If this man had been arrested for burglary, or assault, you wouldn't be having this discussion, he would have been gone already. When people wake up and realize DUI/DWI is a crime, not some minor traffic offense, maybe people will treat it with the seriousness that it deserves.

 

You drink, you drive, your a criminal. If your a criminal you don't deserve to be a leader.

[evmori 11]

I think Basementdweller is right on the money. The guy made a serious mistake & is now paying the consequences.

[Eagle007 10]

nldscout, Thank you.

[Twocubdad 665]

FScouter -- you are correct that the unit and chartered organization have the authority and responsibility to deal with this. If this situation were brought to my COR or IH, I sure hope they would quickly confirm the information and immediately dismiss the leader from the unit.

 

But how many "How Do We Get Rid of ___________" threads have we seen where committee politics and personalities turn something like this into a bloody mess. We know the guy's wife is still involved in the pack. Is their CO involved or are they like most who think their relation with the Pack is "they meet here" and don't understand that they have the responsibility for the unit leaders?

 

Going to the SE is a much cleaner route. I would hope most SE's have the training and professionalism to handle this in a dispassionate manner. They also have access to the criteria used evaluating the information they receive from background checks. This should be no different.

 

Besides, if you go through the committee/CO route, you still have to notify the SE if the leader is dismissed from the unit. The SE would still go through the process to determine if the guy was prohibited from joining another unit.

 

Why subject the unit to this process if there is an alternative?

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

A few years ago, I had to deal with a similar situation as a UC. A father with a prior DUI was wanting to be a Asst Cubmaster. He was an Eagle from our council. The COR knew him and his family. It was deferred to the DE and SE, who did the background check, encouraged the COR not to allow the leader to drive other scouts. This was agreed, and he has been a good leader ever since.

 

The man took the offense very seriously and there have been no other problems.

[Beavah 205]

Why subject the unit to this process if there is an alternative?

 

Because it's da proper way to do things.

 

And because despite what yeh may think, SE's are not really trained in all the nuances of this stuff. They're as likely to make a hash out of it as anybody.

 

Practically speakin', if yeh approach the SE he needs to turf this back to the CO.

 

B

 

[scoutldr 732]

According to the training I had, the SE is to be called on Youth Protection issues. Why is this not a YP concern? So, as long as we don't let him drive, he's still a good role model, but the teetotaler atheist is not? Sheesh. Can the council not conduct an "interim" background check, and toss him? Or is that just whenever a new app is filed? I have to side with the Judge on this one...the CO can only approve leaders that MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS of the BSA. I don't think they get "local option" on this one.

[Curious 10]

>> That part about visiting iniquities seems to apply here.

 

Who gets to visit all of those iniquities? I think Jesus' response (John 8:7) seems to apply here, as well.

 

 

>> If he insists on staying in leadership w/ the unit, then you KNOW you are making the right choice by kicking him out.

 

Such logic is reminiscent of the witch trials in the days of yore. Shall we see if he floats?

 

 

>> A pound of flesh does nobody any good at this point - thats the court's job, so let them do it

.....

>> Dad can rejoin activities after he has paid his debt to society, just never as a leader again.

 

Once that "pound of flesh" has been extracted, that debt has been paid, an individual is still not welcome at the table? Can a man's debts, in the eyes of scouting, ever be repaid? In addition to gays and atheists, are we now excluding sinners?

 

 

>> If your a criminal you don't deserve to be a leader.

 

Those who have made mistakes in their lives have nothing to teach? A sinner can never recant? A convict cannot be reformed? If summary judgment has been passed, then why bother asking the questions on the adult application? Just do the background check and reject those that have any black marks.

 

 

>> encouraged the COR not to allow the leader to drive other scouts.

 

This one, I'm struggling to understand! It is OK to be drunk around the scouts, so long as he doesn't drive?!?!?! Isn't that what we're saying here? We don't trust this leader to be sober enough to drive, but he is sober enough for all else. Why isn't the BSA policy prohibiting alcoholic beverages sufficient?

 

 

>> the CO can only approve leaders that MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS of the BSA. I don't think they get "local option" on this one.

 

Again, why bother asking the questions on the adult application if the CO has no purview?

[Twocubdad 665]

I think you are confusing the few strongly-held personal opinions which have been posted here with the other writers who are discussing how the situation should be handled from a BSA policy standpoint.

 

We had a similar situation here a few years ago. A SM clearly had a drinking problem and occasionally would show up for troop meetings with a couple under his belt. Eventually he was arrested for DWI. The troop committee was divided on the issue. Some folks felt the man deserved compassion for his problem and others saw it as a safety issue which required action. The troop almost folded over the matter and may yet. The problem was forwarded to the Scout Executive who revoked the SM membership. Eventually, the fellow went through rehab and turned himself around. A year or so later and now sober, he appealed his dismissal from Scouts with the support of some of the old troop leaders (and I'm sure letters from his counselor and doctors). Regional accepted the appeal and reinstated his membership with the restriction that he never drive Scouts anywhere. He wanted his old job as SM back but after much heated discussion, he was accepted as an ASM.

 

All in all, I think it was a good outcome. The safety of the Scouts was the number one concern but ultimately the leader was treated fairly and with compassion and given a second chance. Unfortunately the divide this caused in the troop is still very raw and the troop may yet fold. I personally am not sure accepting him back as a unit-serving leader in the old troop was a good idea, but I'm not on that troop committee.

 

Based on having seen that situation from a distance, I still feel getting the help of the professionals is the way to go.

[nldscout 18]

Like I said, until people quit trying to trivialize DUI/DWI, this is going to be an ongoing problem. Its a crime pure and simple, deal with it like any other crime.

 

If you don't think its that serious, join me some saturday morning at 2am, doing an arraignment on a drunk who has either injured or killed someone while driving drunk. Explain to me then after reading all the accident reports, hospital papers and charge sheets how its not that bad.

 

Sorry for the rant, getting off my soapbox now.

 

 

[Eagle007 10]

Curious, from my standpoint the leader's actions/conviction has obvious consequences which equal his removal in a leadership position in my opinion. Whatever the CO decides to do in the best interest of the organization, read scouts, is up to them. They are ULTIMATELY responsible for that decision and that decision alone. And no, a criminal doesn't deserve to be a leader. They've already made their decisions, be it wrong ones, and the BSA have established guidelines that must be followed. Otherwise let's just let every parolee and probationer to become leaders. I don't think so.